Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What about the lunch ladies? (Score 1) 282

They cover that in the full memo:

Q: Why do some supplier employees not take breaks when others do?

A: There are some business functions and processes that have been fully outsourced (Outsourcing), such as cafeteria services, landscaping and call centers. These Outsourcing engagements are limited, require a certain set of criteria be met and must go through a rigorous approval process.

Comment: Re:A few options (Score 1) 266

by grahamwest (#46608301) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Handle Unfixed Linux Accessibility Bugs?

I just tested and OS X treats the clicks and key presses the same way when sticky keys is enabled. Hit the modifier, the next click or key press is modified. Hit the modifier twice and all clicks and key presses and modified until you hit the modifier again to unlock.

Seems very much the logical way to do it.

Comment: Re:was a fix to make follow the specification (Score 1) 266

by grahamwest (#46608267) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Handle Unfixed Linux Accessibility Bugs?

The spec in question - http://www.x.org/docs/XKB/XKBp... as Peter references in the bug comments - discusses StickyKeys (4.4 on page 9) and strongly implies modifiers only unlatch on key presses; mouse buttons are not mentioned. His change made the code match this reading of the spec. I have a hard time believing that's what the spec writers intended, but if so then KDE's lock checkbox really isn't supposed to do anything.

Comment: Re:Did Fluke request this? (Score 2) 653

by grahamwest (#46526621) Attached to: $30K Worth of Multimeters Must Be Destroyed Because They're Yellow

This was my reaction as well. I looked at the trademark registration, which has a picture of the Fluke, then at Sparkfun's site. So, fair enough. However, I google image searched 'multimeter' and there are lots of multimeters in that same shade of yellow, of all sorts of brands. I had no idea yellow "meant" Fluke, personally. I think there's a valid case that this trademark has become diluted and generic. Whether all those others are licensed uses or not, if there's no scope for customer confusion of brand, it's no longer a valid trademark.

Comment: VERY misleading terminology (Score 5, Informative) 676

by grahamwest (#46457753) Attached to: 70% of U.S. Government Spending Is Writing Checks To Individuals

"Individual" in this case does NOT mean "person".

If you download the spreadsheet you can see that they classify total spending as either "direct" or "grants", of which the vast bulk is "direct". Everything that is not a grant must be being paid to an entity of some kind, whether an actual person, a company, a non-profit or something. You can verify this is the total Federal spending using the Monthly Treasury Statements at https://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/... - I recommend the PDF versions.

As for the percentage going to veterans, I expect the number of veterans isn't growing very much, whereas the Federal budget is. So a constant amount in a larger total is going to be a smaller fraction.

Bottom line, this article is FUD and should not be taken serious by anyone.

Comment: Re:So does anybody... (Score 4, Insightful) 111

by grahamwest (#44838711) Attached to: Cisco Can't Shield Customers From Patent Suits, Court Rules

The patents are about automatic failover when network nodes or spans break. The earlier patents are about having spare nodes and spans and deciding which to use when some part of the network fails (eg. having a node which broadcasts "who can help?" and available nodes broadcast back "i can help!" and a single node decides which available node to use). The later patents are about turning on and off routes between nodes to reconfigure the network, usually into some sort of mesh network.

I'm not a network engineer so it's hard for me to judge, but the earlier patents seem trivial to me especially since they're from the late 1990s. The latter patents might have some merit - the idea of changing the network to a mesh is interesting, but my gut feeling is they're mostly solutions that any decent engineer would come up with after a bit of head scratching.

Comment: Re:federal overreach, as usual (Score 1) 356

by grahamwest (#44787989) Attached to: Indiana Man Gets 8 Months For Teaching How To Beat Polygraph Tests

If I come to you and ask you to sell me some dynamite so I can rob a bank with it, it doesn't matter whether I actually rob the bank or not. By agreeing to sell me the dynamite you become part of a criminal conspiracy. There's no duty on you to tell the cops about me, but there is the duty to say, "Sorry dude, I can't help you out with that".

Comment: Re:federal overreach, as usual (Score 5, Informative) 356

by grahamwest (#44785595) Attached to: Indiana Man Gets 8 Months For Teaching How To Beat Polygraph Tests

Because he was charged with advising and helping people lie to the federal government when they told him they were involved in illegal activity (eg. one of them said his brother was a "violent Mexican drug trafficker" for example. He was essentially involved in a conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and that's what they put him in jail for.

Polygraphs are tantamount to phrenology and graphology in my opinion, but that's not what this case was truly about.

Comment: Re:Obvious patents and patent trolls (Score 4, Informative) 179

by grahamwest (#44733239) Attached to: Apple Now Relaying All FaceTime Calls Due To Lost Patent Dispute

Here are a couple of the patents Apple was found to have infringed. They actually look non-obvious to me. Basically they're about running a special DNS proxy server that catches non-standard requests, checks credentials in some fashion, and either sets up a just-in-time VPN, passes them through to a normal DNS server, or returns an error. They also don't seem to be a troll company; it looks like this work was done as a government contract.

I didn't look for any details on how Facetime peer-to-peer worked so I don't know if the ruling is correct and generally I consider software non-patentable (copyright and trade secret should be enough) but this is not what I'd call a meritless patent troll case.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6502135.PN.&OS=PN/6502135&RS=PN/6502135
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7418504.PN.&OS=PN/7418504&RS=PN/7418504

You are in the hall of the mountain king.

Working...